Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?

[Spartan]

This sort of thinking is exactly what I mean when I say people take Jesus, accept he wasn't the Jewish messiah, and then try to make something out of him anyway that has nothing to do with anything. It's completely bizarre.

Nonsense.

 

[Rival]

How about you read the New Testament?

I have; I used to be a Christian.

 

[Spartan]

But there is no "Gentile Messiah" in Judaism so the entire claim is a non-starter. The concept of a "messiah" develops from Jewish thought so advocating two separate messiah-figures, complying with mutually exclusve theologies co-existing makes no sense.

There's no gentile Messiah in Christianity either. Jesus was always Jewish. But he also fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy of reaching out to gentiles:

God relates Jesus’ future mission to the Gentiles:

"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:5,6)

Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy concerning his revelation to the Gentiles of Galilee:

Matthew 4:13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali-- 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: 15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-- 16 the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."

 

[Tumah]

Jesus fulfilled no less than 40 prophecies of the Messiah. For all intents and purposes, as much as he can be the Messiah without running into contradictory prophecy, he is the Messiah.

44 Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ

But you see, all of these prophecies become problematic if we say that Jesus fulfilled them. Some of them are not actually Messianic prophecies, some of them aren't prophecies at all, some of them are Messianic prophecies that are not about the Messiah but the Messianic Age, etc.

But not necessarily measuring up to their standards, because they didn't like what he said. Seeing the hardness of hearts of the Jewish leaders, he decided to prophecy against them. Several times in fact.

You can tell from Jesus's words against the Canaanite woman, about how he came for the Jews, and it is "not right to take the children's bread, and feed it to the dogs." Yet her response clearly changed his view on who was deserving of his ministry. After this, he preached on the Good Samaritan, and generally seemed more about saving the Christians than reforming the Jews. The sinners among the Jews were another story, but he largely stopped trying with the Pharisees, Saducees, and scribes.

There is no prophecy of a Gentile Messiah, this is true. But the Messiah decided the Jews weren't ready yet. So, while among the early Christians, they were mostly circumcised Jews to start with, we have Peter's vision, and afterwards, non-Jews are being converted.

The thing is, once we discount the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah per above, there's no longer any reason to take his words seriously. He (or at least the NT authors) can make whatever claims they like about whomever they like, but they no longer have any value.

Acts 10 - Peter's Vision and Unclean Animals — Freedom Hill Community

Why, Peter asked, was he suddenly being called to disregard massive amounts of Jewish law about mixing with the unclean? Well, if God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6), this means that the Jews continued to be saved under the Law and because they were chosen people. But he was calling Peter and the other disciples not to be Jews. To provide salvation for the Gentiles. As you know, Christians are not Jews. They are not the Chosen People, they do not keep kosher, and they do not care about mixing cotton/poly fabrics. They care about their salvation. Before this point, Gentiles did not have a means of salvation. They weren't under the Jewish law, and essentially weren't born into it, so Yahweh had no means of reconciling them as his Creation. This Messiah was a Savior. And you've decided that this one who came for them is no good. Why is it your business any longer?

My business is not in what non-Jews believe within their own books. My business is with what non-Jews claim my Holy Books say - and then try to persuade me and my family to their twisted interpretations as well. I very infrequently argue with Christians, Muslims or others on anything other than their claims about my Holy Books.

Obscure Taoist parable


Despite only eating bamboo and drinking spring water, the owl was convinced it was somehow a threat to their dead rat.

And so, I ask you, when the Messiah comes, will you reject this one also? Or allow them to be your Messiah?

I'm not sure you understand how the whole Messiah things works. If it would be rationally possible to reject the Messiah when he comes, that would alone would prove that he wasn't the Messiah.

 

[Spartan]

I have; I used to be a Christian.

So you claim.

Going to church doesn't make anyone a Christian any more than going into a garage makes one an automobile.

 

[Tumah]

Nope.

Q is a fallacy. There's no manuscript evidence and no one from antiquity had ever heard of it.

Says @Spartan
Others disagree.

 

[Spartan]

Says @Spartan
Others disagree.

And others disagree with you.

Where's the manuscript evidence for Q?

 

[Rival]

So you claim.

Going to church doesn't make anyone a Christian any more than going into a garage makes one an automobile.

I read the NT as a Christian. I was born and raised in England. I am more than familiar with this text.

 

[Spartan]

Due diligence:
Zech 12 is speaking about the nations waging war on the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. G-d destroys all those nations. This has not happened.
Psalm 16 is David praising G-d. No one else is mentioned.
Psa. 22 is about David's own travails.
Jonah makes no mention of a prophecy about someone else who would do something for three days and three nights.
Isa. 53 is a prophecy about the national leaders perception in retrospect of their relationship with the Jewish people.
Job makes no mention of a resurrection of Jesus.
Passover makes no indication that it's meant to portend something else
Psa. 40:7 is repeating what other prophets have said - that G-d prefers we not sin, rather than sin and bring a sacrifice.

Thanks, but I'll go with what the New Testament provides about the Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

 

[wizanda]

Where's the manuscript evidence for Q?

Also where is there evidence for a Q-Source in the Gospels, there are odd things we could possibly say are plagiarized word for word; yet most is unique stylized writing independent to each author - it is a very poor attempt at making it seem like there isn't a case, for those who don't actually investigate the language within the text themselves.

In my opinion.

 

[Tumah]

And others disagree with you.

Where's the manuscript evidence for Q?

The evidence is in the similarities. But regardless, need Q have been a text rather than oral tradition? No.

 

[rosends]

And so, I ask you, when the Messiah comes, will you reject this one also? Or allow them to be your Messiah?

I don't know. Will this one also be an abject failure lacking the proper characteristics, traits and behaviors to qualify him? If so, I'll reject him also.

 

[Tumah]

Thanks, but I'll go with what the New Testament provides about the Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

Who better to trust than the defendant. He's certainly not biased.

 

[rosends]

Nope, your denials do not offset what I presented.

I stick by what I posted.

You can stick by it but that doesn't mean that the text has in it what you claim it does. Prove me wrong.

 

[Spartan]

The evidence is in the similarities. But regardless, need Q have been a text rather than oral tradition? No.

There's many fallacies at the heart of Q:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

 

[Spartan]

You can stick by it but that doesn't mean that the text has in it what you claim it does. Prove me wrong.

Here's some recommended reading that will answer a multitude of objections to Jesus:

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus - Complete 5 Volume Set

 

[Tumah]

There's many fallacies at the heart of Q:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Yes, we can all read Wikipedia and see the arguments for and against.

 

[Rival]

Here's some recommended reading that will answer a multitude of objections to Jesus:

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus - Complete 5 Volume Set

Nobody here is paying for something you should easily be able to tell us yourself.

 

[Spartan]

Yes, we can all read Wikipedia and see the arguments for and against.

Wikipedia is not a top Messianic scholar. Dr. Michael L. Brown is.

 

[rosends]

There's no gentile Messiah in Christianity either. Jesus was always Jewish. But he also fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy of reaching out to gentiles:

God relates Jesus’ future mission to the Gentiles:

"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:5,6)

Your understanding of Isaiah is bizarre. The text is really clear about whom it speaks. it doesn't mention a messiah. It uses a first and second person and has God talking to the nation and to Isaiah, himself. Now, sure, there is the Malbim's comment (and the Metzudat David), but that doesn't really support your position. Here is the Radak's statement also

כי נבואותיך יהיו לעתיד לאור גוים שיראו שיתקיימו נבואותיך ישובו לדרך טוב ויאירו בך להיות ישועתי עד קצה הארץ, כי בתשועת ישראל יהיו נושעים גם כן הגוים אחר מלחמות גוג ומגוג, כמו שאמר יבאו כל בשר להשתחוות לפני, ואמר והלכו גוים לאורך ומלכים לנוגה זרחך

That should clarify it for you.